Legal blog Above the Law posted a Harvard law student’s e-mail suggesting that race and intelligence might be linked — and it set off a highly unusual debate between the original poster, Elie Mystal (who is partly black) and the blog’s founder, David Lat (who is partly Asian). The comments are a must-read.
In a rare move, Lat, a former federal prosecutor, posts in the comments and backs the Harvard Law student:
Let me play devil’s advocate for a second….
If we accept “race” as a biological concept — which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. — is it really so insane to suggest that some races might, ON AVERAGE, possess certain qualities to a greater or lesser degree than other races?
For example, would it be racist to say that, ON AVERAGE, African-Americans are taller than Asian-Americans? Or that Caucasians are more likely to have blond hair than Asian-Americans?
Mystal provides a lengthy response, summing that it’s “insane” to believe such a thing. But of course.
A great point from Lat — made by race realists for years — is that it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time.
I for one am encouraged that 1) a Harvard law student is at least aware of — and doesn’t reject out of hand — a race/intelligence link, and 2) that an Internet pundit like Lat would put in a cautious defense and 3) that the entire business is now spilled over onto the Internet for robust consideration. Is the Internet helping to dismantle one of the biggest myths of the 20th Century?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
Question/Issue Is Metaphysical, Featuring Objectivity Vs. Dictatorship In Favor Of “Nurture,” Alien Races
(Apollonian, 28 Apr 10)
Note the basic discussion/controversy is metaphysical, hence then depends simply upon choice of basic premises or axioms, that of (a) Aristotelian OBJECTIVITY, hence DETERMINISM, and the other of (b) subjectivism, thence perfectly “FREE” human will and “nurture.”
Note then science always backs up and confirms determinism, necessarily, though there will always be some seeming exceptions in the data which give some folks the excuse for pushing “free” will, “nurture.”
CONCLUSION: Still, such “nurture” excuse/pretext doesn’t give government the right to pursue prejudicial and even outrageous “nurture” in favor of alien races, I say–the very picture of fascism and dictatorship, this in name of “fairness”–what gross, putrid rot. Honest elections
Race realists should respond that it’s irrelevant whether race is a “biological concept”. We should talk in terms of socially defined races, whose existence (as social phenomena) is indisputable. If whites and blacks, as they are socially defined in today’s society, can differ in some traits – skin color and height, for instance – and if that difference can be partly genetic, then it’s an open, empirical question whether the same is true for other traits such as IQ.
None of this depends on the question of whether race is biologically real (which it is, of course). Bringing in biological race just confuses things. The statement that “it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time” is an example of this confusion. Affirmative action is predicated on the existence of race as a social phenomenon, which existence no one denies. When people deny that race exists they’re talking about biological race, so they’re being totally consistent with their support for affirmative action.
As Usual Jews Must Strive To Confuse Basic Issues
(Apollonian, 28 Apr 10)
“Aaron,” typical Jew liar, even if race is “social”–it’s STILL biologic. “Social” doesn’t necessarily exclude biology, and in fact, is perfectly consistent. Indeed, “social” is TOTALLY irrelevant, as determinism is absolutely axiomatic, and prior to social and biologic–a METAPHYSICAL premise to everything, including social and biologic.
Note “social” is necessarily SUBORDINATE to biology, by essence and nature. Leave it to Jew liars to try to separate social fm biology.
CONCLUSION: And again, all science confirms determinism necessarily as all science is FOUNDED upon determinism (cause-effect). It’s only actual data which gives Jews, mystics, subjectivists, moralist-Pharisaists, and LIARS, most of all, even the SLIGHTEST reed of hope to continue ur Jew lies and “nurture” excuse for dictatorship against white people (meaning non-Jews) and Christians. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Race: a social destruction of a biological concept
U.S. Justice Department 2006 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
32,443 White women raped by Black men, zero Black women raped by White men.
None of this depends on the question of whether race is biologically real (which it is, of course). Bringing in biological race just confuses things. The statement that “it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time” is an example of this confusion. Affirmative action is predicated on the existence of race as a social phenomenon, which existence no one denies. When people deny that race exists they’re talking about biological race, so they’re being totally consistent with their support for affirmative action.
The “social constructs” align to race. And “biological constructs” and “social constructs” are separated by a distinction without a difference, as every idea humans exchange or use is a “social construct.”
More importantly, the “social constructs,” as pointed out above, have significantly different characteristics. And this crack is where the crowbar goes; if they can have different hair color, they can have different cognition, too.
I found it heartening to know a white female Harvard Law student on track to a big-time clerkship cared enough about the issue to bring it up with fellow students in a way that was clearly heretical.
The elite simply cannot have too many people like her doing this, and more importantly, being outed without serious consequences.
Aaron is definitely on to something. I’ve had similar thoughts. Race realists act as if they just need to prove to leftists that race is biologically based, and then affirmative action will come crumbling down. No. Everyone knows biological differences exists among the races. It’s just a matter of whether you are honest about it (race realists) or stick your head in the sand (leftists).
But at the very least, EVERYONE (both race realists and leftists) will acknolwedge that race is a social phenomenon.
I heard a leftist once say: “Sure, we’re 99% similar in genes. But tell that to a black guy trying to hail down a cab.”
My response would not be to try to convince him of the biology of race. He DOESN’T WANT TO BELIEVE IT regardless of the evidence. Of course I could say “Well, our genes are 99% the same as apes, but even you’d agree we’re pretty damn different!”
Because we are already in agreement that race exists at least as a social phenomenon, then I would retort: “Hey, I agree with you. We’re 99% similar in genes. But tell that to a white guy who’s been rejected to law school to make way for an underqualified black.”
Our arguments must ultimately be moral-based – like theirs are.
Connelly says that “it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time.”
I would have to respectfully disagree. It is impossible. In fact, it’s been possible for the past 40 years we’ve had affirmative action. All leftists have to do is keep claiming that race is a social construct and that affirmative action will continue to be necessary as long as “racism” exists in our society.
I guess my point is that we don’t have to get bogged down in the “biological” versus “social” argument with leftists to make our point. Start with where we have common ground: race as a social construct. And then, as they do, make a MORAL argument for why affirmative action is wrong.
Connelly says that “it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time.”
I would have to respectfully disagree. It is POSSIBLE [Correction: I wrote "impossible" in the previous post. I meant "possible." Sorry] In fact, it’s been possible for the past 40 years we’ve had affirmative action. All leftists have to do is keep claiming that race is a social construct and that affirmative action will continue to be necessary as long as “racism” exists in our society.
Words is for talkin’ to other people.
EVERY noun, EVERY adjective, EVERY word, is a social construct.
Nothin’ special about ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘chinese’,'Latino’, etc. They’s words just like other words. The terms ‘green light’ and ‘red light’ are social constructs too, but that don’t save you from getting a ticket if you run a red light.
…and it won’t save you from getting charged with genocide under international law.
Unless your victims are white.
Leftists SAY “race is a social construct”.
What they MEAN is it’s o.k. to kill white people.
David Lat: If we accept “race” as a biological concept — which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. —
Lat, of mixed blood, suggests in this statement that intermarriage is a counterargument for race as a biological concept. Huh? So for race to be a biological concept you need clear and defined boundaries? Mixed children disprove race?
By this argument then a color such as red must not exist.
Why? Because there are no clear and defined boundaries to the color red. We cannot say anything is red because red can be mixed with other colors to produce an infinite number of shades of red.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find the level of thinking about race among our PC elites really muddled and pathetic. I’m glad Lat stood up for the Harvard law school student who wrote the e-mail linking race and intelligence, but his qualification in the statement above about why race may not in his view be a biological concept is really childish. The advantage for us, who have thought long, hard and seriously about race, is we could win an argument about race with these foolds hands down.